The Woman in Black (2012)

Don't listen to the negative reviews

Absolutely the worst movie.

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

The tragedy of movement is the happiness of inertnessThe happiness of inertness is the happiness of nothingThe happiness of nothing is the nothing of happinessThe nothing of happiness is the something of tragedyThe something of tragedy is the physical of tragedyThe physical of tragedy is the tragic being physicalThe tragic being physical is the unable being physicalThe unable being physical is the able being not physicalThe able is the hierarchy The hierarchy being inert is the equality being ableThe equality being able is the ability of equalityThe ability of equality is the equality of abilityThe equality of ability is the equality of movementThe equality of movement is the non-movement of movement The non-movement of movement is the obstruction to movementThe obstruction to movement is the obstruction to styleThe obstruction to style is a style of obstructionA style of obstruction is a means of obstructionA means of obstruction is an obstruction of meansAn obstruction of means is a rejection of meansA rejection of means is a divide between rejection and meansDivide is rejectionBetween is internalRejection internal rejection and meansReject internal rejection is external rejectionExternal rejection is acceptanceAcceptance and means is acceptance and deviceAcceptance and device is not and deviceDevice is separationNot and separation is and and separationAnd and separation is separation and and Separation and and is not and andNot and and is andThe Woman In Black is a very moral story, because it's about the basic message of and

One of the best modern day ghost stories you'll will ever watch. I saw this one 3 or 4 years ago and recently watched it again - just as good the second time around. Would be a great one in a horror film collection.I will not rehash the storyline, I'll just reiterate how good the movie is. There are a handful of jump scares done in good taste.Atmosphere - lots of it! Good acting - you bet ya! Good story - yes it is. There are a handful of jump scares done in good taste, eerie subtle horror, suspenseful at times - definitely worth watching. It's just as good as the classic Hammer Horror films. 9/10

A young lawyer visits a remote village, sent by his firm, in order to complete a series of paperwork. There, he's confronted with a ghost which, with every apparition, takes the life of local children as revenge for some gruesome past events. He starts investigating but the whole world turns upside down when he discovers that his own son is in grave danger.Although interesting as a base idea, it isn't able to keep you attracted as the story unravels, the main character being literally chasing shadows most of the movie, mainly with no results. It has a very dark and spooky atmosphere, almost perfect for this type of movie but its actions are far from pleasing. Besides some scarce dialogue and frightening encounters, almost nothing interesting happens. You want to find out how it ends but it's a bit hard to endure basically the same thing, repeating over and over again.It is grim, it is sinister at times and it has a catchy plot, but its course of events is a bit letdown, not to mention the unsatisfactory finale which, in my opinion, makes the whole struggle before it simply pointless. An average movie after all.

It's sad that a film can do so much right... from sharp and crisp visual direction to wonderfully atmospheric and Gothic music to top- notch performances from a wildly talented cast... yet still come up short and even stale at times. But such is the case for 2012's "The Woman in Black", the second adaptation of a 1983 horror novella by author Susan Hill. While the film is certainly one of many strengths and is sure to raise some goosebumps from general audiences, the fact of the matter is that anyone with even a passing knowledge and appreciation of horror will likely recognize and bemoan the fact that the film falls into the same trappings and faults of many other modern releases- that being an over-reliance on the same old clichés that pollute the genre as a whole, and for its woeful over-reliance on jump-scares. Still, the film is most definitely an enjoyable experience. It just falters a bit too often to be anything more than "average" and "adequate." Which is a shame, given the rampant talent that is obvious both on-screen and behind the camera.In Edwardian era England, lawyer Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) is dispatched to the town of Crythin Gifford, where he is set to work on the sale of a massive estate. However, not all is well in Crythin Gifford- and it soon becomes clear that a dark and vengeful specter of the past is haunting the town, claiming the lives of local children and driving them to commit suicide. And it is up to Arthur and his associates to solve the mystery and try and save the town from this vile entity... But at what cost?Helmed by "Eden Lake" director James Watkins from a script by the ever-reliant Jane Goldman, I do think the movie has a lot going for it. Watkins has a very keen and wickedly stylish eye, and seems to relish in delivering the most wonderfully oppressive and dreary visuals possible. It's a very slick and moody film from an aesthetic standpoint, and I absolutely love the tone that Watkins establishes early on and builds off of with each passing scene. Goldman's script is generally tight, concise and moves at a fairly good pace, and her structure works well at building the mystery and suspense for much of the runtime. Add to that a genuinely disturbing and freakish musical score from the wonderful Marco Beltrami and a first-rate performance from star Daniel Radcliffe, and you should have a sure-fire winner.Unfortunately, as I noted above... there's just too much of the same-old, same-old here to really get excited. What promises to be a tense and exciting supernatural horror in the first act quickly degenerates into a by-the-numbers thriller by the film's midway point. While I refuse to spoil any of the twists and turns of the tale, I will say that most fans of horror and suspense, or even people with the most basic interest in film structure will see everything coming from a mile away. It does take away some of the potential suspense, and outside of a generally surprising climax... most people will be able to call the shots way ahead of time. And then there's the jump-scares. My god... the jump-scares. It's really kind of irritating how so many modern- day films think that random jolts are a proper substitute for horror. Jump-scares are not, well, scary. They're startling. And their effect is only minimal and fleeting. They need to be earned and artfully used in moderation and in key-moments to be effective. And for the most part, they aren't earned and they most certainly aren't used in moderation here. You can't just keep throwing something in the audience's face over and over with a loud stinger and expect it to be "good horror." It really betrayed the genuinely and truly disturbing sequences of fear and anguish throughout the film. There are so many good and freakish sequences, that the random jumps that keep popping up end up dragging the whole film down. They cheapen the experience.Still, it's not a total loss. The film is filled to burst with wonderful Gothic style, some fantastic sequences of dread and tragedy and admittedly a great turn from Radcliffe in one of his most notable roles outside of the "Harry Potter" universe. It might be pulled down a few pegs due to its admittedly large faults, but I think general audiences will get enough of a kick out of it to make it worth at least a rental. Just know that if you're a horror junkie or a genre enthusiast, this isn't really "great horror." This is "popcorn horror" for the masses.I give "The Woman in Black" a ever-so-slightly above average 6 out of 10.